IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-21072
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RAMON ANTHONY PRICE,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-01-CR-237-ALL
--------------------
August 21, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ramon Anthony Price appeals his bench-trial conviction for
possession of a firearm subsequent to a felony conviction. He
challenges the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and
contends that this court should reconsider its jurisprudence
regarding the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) in light
of United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), Jones v. United
States, 529 U.S. 848 (2000), and United States v. Morrison, 529
U.S. 598 (2000). Price’s arguments are foreclosed by this
court’s precedent.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 01-21072
-2-
Even after Lopez, the “in or affecting commerce” element of
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) requires only that the firearm possessed by
the defendant previously traveled in interstate commerce. See
United States v. Rawls, 85 F.3d 240, 242-43 (5th Cir. 1996)
(citing Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563, 575 (1977)).
Price stipulated to evidence that the guns he possessed had
traveled in interstate commerce. This court recently determined
that Morrison and Jones were distinguishable from an 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1) case in which the defendant, like Price, had
stipulated that his firearm had traveled in interstate commerce,
emphasizing that “the constitutionality of § 922(g) is not open
to question.” United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 1113 (2001) (quotation and
citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.